Alternatives to Custody

Document Sample
Alternatives to Custody Powered By Docstoc
					What's The Alternative? Contents: 1. Remit and Background 2. Who are these people in prison? 3. Prisons and mental Health Problems 4. Why Custody? 5. Current Alternatives 6. Biblical and theological reflection 7. Restorative Justice 8. Towards Solutions 9. Challenges to the Churches

1. Remit and Background 1.1 This report was commissioned by the General Assembly of 2005 to be presented by the Church and Society Council to the Assembly of 2007. It follows reports on Overcrowding in Prisons (by the former Committee on Church and Nation) and Women in the Criminal Justice System (by the Joint Faiths Advisory Board on Criminal Justice - JFABCJ) made to previous Assemblies. The concerns raised in these reports continue:  while crime decreases overall, numbers in custody in Scotland increase, to over 7,000 (with further increases forecast);  sadly, Scotland regularly appears at, or near, the top of E.U. tables showing the percentage of the population in custody;  while there has been wide agreement over several years that far too many women are imprisoned, numbers continue to rise; and  recidivism remains high - 64% of offenders released from prison in 2002-03 were reconvicted of another offence within 2 years; reconviction is more likely for those who have served more custodial sentences, and the figure is highest for younger offenders. (1) 1.2 The Assembly of 2005 called on the Scottish Executive "to address overcrowding in Scotland's male and female prisons by a strategy of prisoner number reduction, imprisoning only those persons who constitute a danger to others in society, and reapplying the resources thus released for more imaginative penal and remedial measures"; the Assembly called on us, in collaboration with the JFABCJ, to report "on other models of sentencing", ie alternatives to growing levels of custody. 1.3 In preparing our report, we have worked ecumenically, and with the Joint Faiths Advisory Board on Criminal Justice, and we have drawn on the churches' engagement with the criminal justice system and with social care; we have met with or had written responses from prisoners and Victim Support, police representatives, people who work in prisons, in the courts, and in community-based alternatives to custody, and academics. 1.4 In this report, we look first at who the people are whom we are putting in prison, followed by a specific focus on those with mental health problems (about whom we have particular concerns); then, we look at the reasons for imprisoning people, and the other possible sentencing options. In the context of this sketch of the current situation, we start to think theologically – to respond in terms of our faith. This takes us towards "restorative justice", which we think offers a helpful perspective. In section eight, we move towards some solutions, and conclude in section nine with some challenges for the churches in this context. 2. Who are These People in Prison? 2.1 Prisoners range in age from under 18s to old age pensioners. That some are children (as young as 14) is, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) has said, shocking, and damaging; and this is an issue we may look at further in future. Some are mothers of young children, many are ill, and some are disabled. Many suffer from serious addictions. Sentences range from a few days to life. Roger Houchin has shown that 50% of inmates come from 155 of the 1222 local government wards in Scotland (almost exactly the poorest wards). All the research shows that they are overwhelmingly disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals. Two thirds arrive in prison from unemployment, and three quarters leave with no job to go to; 70% of offenders have been in care. About half of those admitted to prison lack functional literacy and around 60% lack functional numeracy, with young offenders at the higher end of the scale. This vicious circle of poverty and crime is one which – as we were told by a prisoner – "we must all take responsibility to break". The links between alcohol and violence are well known, as is the

contribution the misuse of alcohol can make to antisocial behaviour. A large proportion of offending is linked to drugs – dealing (often to support a habit), or committing crime to get money for drugs; the Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service has been reported as saying that 85% of those admitted to prison are using drugs, and 99% of female inmates are probably on drugs when they begin their sentence. 2.2 Included in the high numbers are people on remand – untried and therefore not found guilty. Mental health problems affect a high proportion of prisoners, especially women (see further below). There are those who have failed to pay fines; breaching the terms of a Community Service Order or Drug Testing & Treatment Order (DTTO) can also result in custody. 2.3 The Scottish Prison Service struggles within very tight budgets to cater for all inmates, to carry through its avowed aims of "Custody, Order, Care and Opportunity". The Chief Inspector has pointed out that – among the nine "evils of overcrowding" – are restrictions on prisoners' access to staff, to programmes, to training and to work; hard-pressed staff are unable to meet individual needs or to make risk assessments, and prisoners spend more time in their cells. 2.4 It has also been suggested that, since their first obligation is to keep prisoners in jail, the emphasis of the SPS remains too focussed on custody and order, at the expense of other priorities which might help reduce re-offending. 3. Prisons & Mental Health Problems 3.1 There is a widespread recognition and acceptance that a very high number of prisoners, especially women, are affected by mental health problems, including and often accompanied by drug and/or alcohol dependency (as reflected by the Chief Executive of the SPS above). 3.2 Speaking in 2005, Dr Andrew Fraser, head of health for the SPS noted that, of the (then) 6700 prison population, more than 60% enter prison suffering from some form of mental illness; this compares with 16% of the general population. 5% of the prison population will be suffering from a severe and enduring mental disorder, four times the background incidence one would expect in the community (even though they will have been found legally "fit to plead"). This prevalence may partly be explained by the recognition that some crimes are committed by people suffering from some mental illness. Society needs an appropriate response to acts of violence, which includes protection from violent people (whatever their mental state), and, for some, prison may simply be the place where their medication is more assured; but prisons are not the place where the problems of mental illness can be best addressed. 3.3 In comparison with other European countries, Scotland has a relatively high number of psychiatrically-trained nurses and of psychologists working within the prison system (though psychology does not play as large a part in Scottish prisons as it used to). (2) But it is also clear that these mental health professionals are faced with tremendous workloads, and in addition, due to the perennial overcrowding and general staff shortages, are frequently diverted to other duties. It is clear that screening procedures are often impaired and several researchers have shown that many mentally-disordered prisoners are not recognised as such. Nor has Scotland any special beds within the prison system to deal with seriously disordered prisoners. 3.4 A major concern in Scotland has to be the lack of official exchange of medical information between an inmate‟s GP and the prison‟s contracted-in GP. This means that the continuity of care, so important in the management and alleviation of many mental illnesses becomes virtually impossible. This contrasts very unfavourably with the situation in England and Wales, where recently there has been an overhaul in approach to healthcare and the NHS has now replaced the prison service as the central provider. This has meant more integration with community health services, aimed at a higher standard of care. At the very least, integrating drug treatment and therapeutic regimes for mentally ill prisoners with primary care services upon release would make a great deal of sense. Hopefully, this would help to reduce the tendency seen especially amongst women deliberately to return to prison, to be safe and have their required medication issued regularly as prescribed. We therefore welcome steps by the SPS towards greater integration of health services with the NHS. 3.5 In 1999, a Scottish Office report on "Health, Social Work and Related Services for Mentally Disordered Offenders in Scotland" said, "The Scottish Prison Service is committed to commissioning health services, including mental health services comparable, within the constraints of imprisonment, to those available to other citizens … Experience suggests that prisoners are most at risk of developing, or suffering exacerbation of mental health problems in the period immediately following reception, whether on remand or after sentencing. The loss of social acceptance, of material

possessions, general medical conditions and separation from family, friends and other social supports can be expected to have a detrimental effect on mental health." However, a 2006 SPS prisoner survey found that "where services are available and accessible, prisoners often take the opportunity and benefit from that support. The challenge now is to increase the capacity of services as the gap between perceived problems (by the prisoners) and the assessment of need". 3.6 The problems of mental health and prisons have been well-documented and established for many years, but whether any lessons have been learned and whether there have been any improvements and any effect on sentencing is extremely debatable. Clearly there are violent people from whom society must be protected (whatever their mental state). However, all the research would indicate that there is a major problem in Scotland with a large number of mentally ill people being locked up in prisons quite inappropriately, who are not receiving the care and treatment which their conditions warrant, and who could be dealt with much more suitably with an alternative to custody. Initiatives such as Routes out of Prison (ROOP) introduce integrated case management; along with Throughcare, this should improve liaison between social and community workers inside and outside prisons. Such steps are to be welcomed in relation to those with mental health, as elsewhere. 3.7 We also urgently need secure alternatives between mainstream prisons and the State Hospital at Carstairs. For more effective rehabilitation, facilities closer to the communities from which offenders/patients come are needed, but recent experience in Glasgow has shown gaining public acceptance for this may be hard (possibly a challenge for the Church?). 4. Why Custody? 4.1 During our reflections, we were challenged by Dr Andrew McLellan, HMCIP, to turn our thinking upside down, and see custody as the alternative. This certainly is the reality. Custody is used as the disposal in only about 12% of the cases which come to court; it has been justified on the following bases: (a) to keep dangerous and violent offenders away from the general public and thus to increase community safety and the perception of safety; (b) as a deterrent particularly to first offenders and to those on the fringes of crime; (c) to facilitate rehabilitation by addiction treatment, behaviour management courses, education or training; (d) when alternatives have failed or where, as a result of chaotic lifestyles, the sentencer feels a communitybased alternative is only "setting the offender up to fail". However, the effectiveness of prison in relation at least to deterrence (b) and rehabilitation (c) is open to challenge; indeed, we were told that rehabilitation is no longer an expectation of sentencers. 4.2 As indicated above, there clearly are serious crimes for which custody is needed, especially on public safety grounds. However, the need for public protection in the short term has to be weighed carefully against public protection in the longer term by reducing reoffending. Three major factors contributing to preventing offending and reoffending are a home, a job and family support; a sentence involving the loss of at least one, and frequently all three of these, makes “going straight” even less likely, as the figures for reconviction suggest (our conversations with prisoners and contact with "Families Outside" reinforced the value of these links). As HMCIP told us "prison is always damaging". 4.3 Prison – at an average cost of over £30,000 per person per year – is a very expensive disposal; the new prison at Addiewell (3) is estimated to cost £1bn over 25 years. Extra costs involved, eg in taking children into care (in the case of some women prisoners), with all the extended and often lifelong harm done, cannot be calculated. Recent Executive proposals to end automatic release of prisoners on "short" sentences (under 4 years) at the half way point are estimated to mean from 700 – 1,100 extra prisoners, to cost £67m per year, and to require some 500 new social workers; the Justice Minister admitted in January 2007 that these measures would mean a third new jail, reversing the 2002 decision to restrict prison expansion to two new jails. 4.4 Many of the damaged and vulnerable people currently in prison could be supported and encouraged to live in the community, either in hostels or in their own homes while undergoing treatments, training or carrying out community service. This would involve greatly increased resourcing of community-based services, but in the longer term would significantly reduce prison places, and therefore costs. 5. Current Alternatives 5.1 In dealing with those found guilty of crimes, courts currently use a variety of disposals other than custody: (a) Absolute Discharge – only possible for the least serious offences, where penalties are not fixed by law; no conviction is recorded against the offender.

(b) Admonition – court warning and a conviction recorded. (c) Caution – the offender has to lodge a sum of money as security for good behaviour; can be combined with other non-custodial sentences. (d) Deferred Sentence - can be used to ensure that an offender undertakes a specific task or service related directly to the circumstances of the offence, for example, making recompense to victims; almost always includes a specific requirement to be of good behaviour; in practice, sentencers use deferred sentences when they know that there are outstanding charges to be dealt with. (e) Disqualification (from holding or obtaining a driving licence). (f) Fines - often disproportionately hard on the poor. Sentencers are expected to give due regard to “financial circumstances”; the argument used in the Sentencing Commission‟s report that "a simple, reliable and costeffective means of obtaining information on offenders‟ income currently does not exist in Scotland" is surprising. More consideration should be given to the use of day unit fines (ie fines based on a person's daily income). (g) Compensation Orders – can be imposed to ensure that victims receive financial compensation from offenders in appropriate cases. (h) Probation orders – for not less than six months and not more than three years; cannot be made unless the court is satisfied that suitable arrangements for the supervision of the offender can be made; courts can specify additional requirements if they are thought to be reasonable, legally enforceable and capable of being supervised; can be combined with a community service order, a drug treatment and testing order or a restriction of liberty order. Failure to comply with a probation order may result in the offender being otherwise sentenced for the offence. If a person commits a further offence while on probation, the offender may be dealt with for the probation offence, as well as for the offence committed while on probation. (i) Drug Testing & Treatment Orders (DTTOs) – can be made following conviction of someone aged 16 or over; imposed for not less than six months or more than three years; can only be made where arrangements for its implementation are available in the local authority area, and after a report on the offender from a local authority officer; sentencers must be satisfied that the offender is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, drugs, that the dependency or propensity requires and is susceptible to treatment, and that the offender is a suitable person to be subject to such an order. (j) Community Service Orders (CSOs) - intended to be used as a direct alternative to imprisonment, so only when an offender aged 16 or over is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment or detention. A CSO requires the offender to perform unpaid work for between 80 and 300 hours; it cannot be made unless the offender consents and arrangements are in place for supervision (by local authority social work departments). A wide variety of schemes exist but they are not sufficiently funded to maximise their effectiveness, or even to provide adequate supervision; there are also perceptions that some of the activities provide little public benefit and that longer orders may deprive others of paid employment; and few provide adequately for women. For those offenders not in employment, the hours of service should equate to a normal working week. (k) Restriction of Liberty Order – aims to restrict the liberty of the offender in the community and may, in addition, do this in a way that reduces the risk of re-offending where previous offending has been linked to specific locations or events; can be made for any period of up to 12 months, though it may not exceed 12 hours in any one day and cannot be made unless the offender agrees to it; can be free-standing or be combined with community service or probation or with a DTTO; the court must be satisfied that compliance with that order can be monitored, typically by “electronic tagging” of the offender. Probably initially accepted by the offender to avoid custody, but extended use for young people is likely to be counter-productive unless access to acceptable leisure activities is permitted. They could be very useful as an alternative for carers of children, sparing the children the trauma of separation. However, there is some concern that these may put extra pressures on offenders' families. (l) Home Detention Curfews – not an alternative to custody in the first instance. Since July 2006, prisoners serving a sentence of less than four years (not including sex offenders) may be released on home detention curfew up to four months early. Prisoners released on home detention curfew have to meet certain conditions, which will be monitored by an electronic tag. Standard conditions include being of good behaviour and keeping the peace, not committing any offence and not tampering with the electronic monitoring equipment. Prisoners on home detention curfew continue to serve their sentence during the home detention curfew and could be recalled to prison if they don't meet the conditions. (m) Supervised Attendance Orders (SAOs) – closely linked to problems with fines; SAOs are alternatives to imprisonment for adults and for young offenders aged 16 and 17 in cases of fine default; for young offenders an SAO may also be imposed along with a fine, or imposed as a direct alternative to a fine. From summer 2007, SAOs, with "constructive activity like unpaid work or financial management training", will replace "short, unproductive periods in prison" for fine defaulters (where the fine is £500 or less).

(n) AntiSocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) – introduced in Scotland in 1999, ASBOs are, strictly, a civil remedy, applied for by local authorities and other social landlords (when they may also refer the incident to the Procurator Fiscal for possible prosecution); however, since 2004, "ASBOs on Conviction" have been available to sheriffs when an offender is convicted of antisocial acts. In either form, they are intended to constrain further antisocial behaviour. Their effectiveness has yet to be fully assessed, as local authorities were initially reluctant to use them. Over 30% of ASBOs have been breached, leading – most commonly – to police action (eg the offender being charged with the breach). 5.2 However, the range of current alternatives listed will not be available to every Sheriff Court. We were informed that, in one area of the country, Sheriffs have been told they can‟t make any more DTTOs because the scheme is full to capacity. At present there is apparently no consistency in either the menu of alternatives available to sentencers or in how they are implemented across the country; delays in implementing alternatives also undermine their effectiveness. 5.3 There are also, increasingly, "alternatives to prosecution", ie the decisions about what happens after an offence or crime has been detected. There are several initiatives being developed at present – such as police warnings, fixed penalty notices, restorative justice processes – which replace the requirement for a case/person to be reported to the Procurator Fiscal and thus avoid the "offender" receiving a criminal conviction. This seems to offer a positive way forward for minor, first-time offending. 6. Biblical and Theological Reflection 6.1 Justice and Redemption 6.1.1 The challenge for the church is to reflect on the context we have outlined in light of our faith. We approach these issues, and the people involved in them (offenders, victims and others), as people who believe in redemption. This is not redemption that is the result of justice; this redemption is itself justice. This is because our faith is in a just God, whose activity in the world is the source of our understanding of justice. Jesus of Nazareth, in whom the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, is where our search for just living must begin and end. He lives the justice we must reach after; he is the fulfilment of what has gone before and the teacher for all that is to come. 6.1.2 The biblical picture of God as “judge” does not understand that term in the same way as Western jurisprudence, as impartial adjudicator and sentencer. Jesus brings to fruition the way of being of the "judges" of the Old Testament, more concerned with righting wrongs, with becoming involved, than with adjudicating guilt and sentence. And as the texts on "an eye for an eye" limited the human tendency to seek revenge, Jesus limits the human tendency to self-righteousness by asking who is really entitled to throw the first stone. Similarly, just as there is also scope within apparently retributive laws (eg Exodus 20-23) for a compensatory penalty for more minor crimes, Jesus lives and seeks to elicit a justice that goes beyond the mere following of a legal code. Like Jeremiah before him and Paul after him, he looks for a law written on the human heart – life redeemed and justice victorious. 6.1.3 This idea of active justice, God involved to make all things new, runs through the Old Testament and the New. But neither encourages us to offer "cheap grace", or to be "soft" on crime, in the sense of indulging the offender or playing down the impact on the victim. It is clear that God, by putting his life in the hands of suffering and death, identifies with the suffering of his people. God acts profoundly to put things, and people, right. Free grace is anything but cheap; it is the justice of God offered to the undeserving. 6.2 Punishment and Prison 6.2.1 While many well-known Old Testament characters are imprisoned (such as Joseph, Samson and Daniel), "prison is not prescribed as a criminal sanction in Old Testament Law … While prolonged imprisonment was not used in biblical times as a form of criminal punishment, it was still used for political and military ends". (4) Prisons were used predominately as instruments of oppression in the Old and indeed New Testament eras. It is difficult, therefore, to make direct comparisons with the contemporary administration of justice. Nor is it easy to relate directly the imposition of imprisonment in the New Testament with the sentencing policy of today. However, Jesus not only acknowledges the existence of prisons in his parable of the sheep and the goats, but urges his hearers to visit the prisoner as if the prisoner was Jesus himself. 6.2.2 To Jesus, however, the reason for being in prison is not primary; it is the fact of being there. So he clearly identifies himself with those in prison; indeed, throughout his ministry, he was criticised for associating with "sinners" and/or "criminals". Many times Jesus‟ life is threatened until the forces marshalled against him are of sufficient strength and he is himself held in custody, tried, convicted, sentenced and executed. Many of his first

followers experienced imprisonment, and indeed many of the New Testament writings were sent from a prison cell. And there are several stories in the Acts of the Apostles where the role of angels (the messengers of God) is to break the followers of Jesus out of prison. 6.3 Presence and Participation 6.3.1 The work of Sr Helen Prejean, most movingly portrayed in the Tim Robbins‟ film "Dead Man Walking", illustrates this identification in a contemporary way. When accompanying Matthew Poncelet, a convicted prisoner, towards the place of his execution, Sr Helen lays her hand on his shoulder and reassures him with the words "Christ is here". Christ‟s presence in the experience of the offender would urge us to take the perspective of the offender as seriously as possible, listening and inviting participation. Jesus of Nazareth, convicted as an offender (and by the most sophisticated legal system of His age), allows us to see all offenders with a new perspective. Christ eternally is present with us in our trials, allowing our participation in the life of God. 6.3.2 Similarly, the Gospel imperative to love not only those who are neighbours but those who hurt us (Matthew 5:43–48) invites something of a paradigm shift. Not only are we to see our enemies in a different light, but ourselves also, and in the course of this discover that just as all have fallen short of God‟s intention all are equally loved. We have all offended, and in that realisation, mercifully, Christ is present: "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5: 7-8). 6.3.3 The redemption in which we believe involves repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration. Each element is integral to the way in which those who have failed God are brought by him into a renewed relationship with their Maker, and so enabled and encouraged to "go and sin no more." This is atonement, in which the cost of redemption is recognised; in atonement, it is through participation in the situation of the victim that God, in Christ, brings the offer of forgiveness to the offender. 6.4 Pain and Forgiveness 6.4.1 In The Wounded Healer, Henri Nouwen offers a vision of how, by recognising pain as part of the human experience, those who have been hurt may find some healing for themselves and others. By following the pattern of the risen Christ, who did not deny his scars, but offered them as a means of solidarity with all who are wounded, in such common fellowship, there lies the possibility of healing and hope (John 20:24-29). Whether the wounds are inflicted by factors outwith our control, by others or by self, a journey that is hopeful is possible. Hope is such a precious gift in the midst of so much that can threaten to overwhelm. 6.4.2 The acceptance of forgiveness is a watershed in the lives of those whose acceptance has been at the deepest level. The risen Christ suggests that his forgiven and forgiving followers have a particular role to play in bringing forgiveness to others. Indeed the actions of the Church in this regard could be pivotal: "if you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven" (John 20:23). In a society in which an increased number of people are placed in custody, there has never been a better time to embrace forgiveness. 6.4.3 In The Lost Art of Forgiving, Johan Christoph Arnold tells the remarkable stories of those who have been able to offer forgiveness. The stories resonate with the teaching in the Lord‟s Prayer – “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” (Luke 11:4). The giving of forgiveness can be as important for those who forgive as it is for those who receive; in such ways great burdens have been lifted. Yet it cannot be forced on victims. The struggle is about how we can be more human with one another, and how we find the confidence and trust in which to be so. 6.5 Relationship and Renewal 6.5.1 Jesus, who saw himself within the tradition of the Suffering Servant, interpreted his mission as being not only about "releasing prisoners from darkness" but about "binding up the broken-hearted ... and comforting all who mourn". Jesus is noted for his compassion, an empathy with those who are forgotten. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, he highlights the need to care for those who are made victims. What is especially challenging about the parable is that those who pass by the victim of an assault and robbery are the religious of the day whereas the one who tends to the person in need comes from a nation with whom there had been enmity. But that foreigner heard the voice of the victim – and acted. In the teaching and example of Jesus, whose experience bridges the gap between victim and offender, there is a meeting place. 6.5.2 In what could be described as a parable of restorative justice, the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15, the son returns home from squandering his father‟s money, deeply repentant. In a meeting with the one whose trust he has betrayed, the son acknowledges his failure and begins to reiterate his desire to make amends. The Father, as victim,

has always been desperate not simply to forgive and move on, but also to restore to the fold the one who caused him such pain. The relationship is renewed. 6.5.3 The parable, however, is also a tale of two brothers – and the listeners are left guessing at the end as to whether reconciliation will be achieved between them. That such an outcome matters is not only implicit within the parable (and its context) but made explicit by Jesus‟ teaching about integrity before God: "If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift," (Matt. 5:26). 6.5.4 Perhaps it is this text that lies behind the liturgical practice of “sharing the peace” at the Celebration of Holy Communion. There is a theological division between those who place this before, and those who place it after, participation in communion itself. Are we reconciled with one another, and thus made ready for participation in communion; or are we reconciled through participation in communion? An approach to God is accompanied by a confession of those things that have broken the relationship. There is the pronouncement of divine forgiveness, and there is fresh commitment to the honouring of that relationship and its outworking in the care and love of others. Worship, in either of these interpretations, is in effect a drama of restoration. 6.5.5 This debate has clear relevance to ecumenical discussion over whether or not Christians can share bread and wine together. It also has importance for how we see the economy of redemption. Is there a set order of things, which cannot be changed? Or might it be that continued participation in society, the maintenance of relationship even when fractured, actually leads to repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation? One of the difficulties of prison is that its purpose is to prevent participation; and this can also mean that in the mind of the offender the offence and the punishment are linked, but the link between the offender and the victim is forgotten or ignored. 6.6 Release and Restoration 6.6.1No point is served in the life of human society, no truth is revealed about the justice of God, if release from past sin cannot be offered nor restoration accomplished. There must be ways in which a future is offered that is free from the stain of the past. The story of Zacchaeus shows the repentant tax collector seeking to find such a way through the recompense of the victims of his greed. He gives half his money to the poor and paying back four times the amount of any sum he has taken to himself in his cheating days. While no doubt unable to trace and compensate all the people who may have suffered at his hands, he at least gives something back to the community at large – he restores that he might be restored. 6.6.2 The clash between Jesus' way and that of others is vividly captured in the story of the Gerasene or Gaderene demoniac (Mark 5.1-20). Off his and the disciples home territory, Jesus encounters a disturbed, violent man, whom the conventional wisdom had tried – unsuccessfully – to restrain, with ever stronger chains. Jesus sets him free, and empowers him for a new life in his own community. We are not seeking to trivialise this, nor to play down what is needed for this to happen – it is a miracle. But it is surely one which fits well with the Biblical understanding and experience of justice as proactive, dynamic and relational. That, we believe, points us towards restorative justice. Christians involved in the area of crime and punishment bring with them the belief that all things are possible with God. 7. Restorative Justice 7.1 An important recent development in thinking and practice is "restorative justice". Not yet in use in mainline sentencing, but increasingly seen as an alternative to custody in dealing with offending behaviour by children and young people, restorative justice was suggested to us by several different consultees. We were impressed by the results quoted to us for work with young offenders - by SACRO and Central Scotland Police - and suggest that it should be possible to build a culture of restorative justice by gradually introducing its use further up the offenders‟ age range. 7.2 In restorative justice, the emphasis is on addressing the offence, including its impact on the victim(s), with a view to restoration by enabling offenders to go some way to righting the wrong they have committed. Restorative justice also attempts to let victims feel that they have been heard. There are explorations under way to discover approaches in which the justice system might allow a greater emphasis on restorative justice. 7.3 Roots of Restorative Justice Approaches: 7.3.1 While conventional justice has its primary focus on the principle that people who do wrong should be punished, restorative justice starts by offering help to the victim, and says that the offender should make amends, either to the victim if he or she wants it, or to the community.

7.3.2 Offenders are encouraged to accept responsibility and make things right, shifting the current emphasis on paying back harm (so that at present, in courts, offenders have every incentive to deny or minimize the harm they caused to the victim, in order to escape, or reduce, their punishment). 7.3.3 The victim and offender can speak to each other directly - not through lawyers - without the constraints of courtroom rules. The victim can tell the offender the effects of the crime, and ask questions such as: “Why me?” “Why did you do it?” The offender can explain how it all came about and usually apologizes. One criminologist the Norwegian, Nils Christie - has said that the professional lawyers, police and social workers have “stolen” conflicts from their “owners”; restorative justice gives them back. 7.3.4 Another difference is that restorative justice involves the community, at several different levels. The original work on restorative justice used trained lay mediators, and this is a strong tradition in restorative justice, although in many places, professionals have been brought in. Using volunteers widens the range of people in the community who have met victims and offenders at first hand, giving them a more human understanding of the pressures on offenders as well as the effects on victims. Better still, if the mediators are trained and supervised by an independent voluntary organisation, accredited to a national body, the restorative ideal can be maintained and developed independently of the constraints of the state-run system - though inevitably there must be close liaison with it, as well as adequate funding. We have heard from direct experience of such a programme working effectively in the USA (Missouri). 7.3.5 The first American attempt at restorative justice was started in Indiana by a Mennonite, Howard Zehr, who also provided a theoretical base. Starting from the Old Testament, he points out in his book, Changing Lenses (2nd ed., 1995) that the underlying ideal was shalom, which means not only peace but social well-being and its root is linked to shillum, paying back. The much-quoted “an eye for an eye” does not focus on demanding retribution, but on limiting it, and in any case was superseded by Jesus: " …but I say, do good to those who harm you". Zehr lists ways in which our conventional justice system contrasts with biblical justice, for example: Contemporary Justice An inquiry into guilt Focus on infliction of pain Justice opposed to mercy Justice as maintenance of status quo Focus on guilt and abstract principles Wrong as violation of rules The state as victim Justice serves to divide Biblical Justice A search for solutions Focus on making right Justice based on mercy Justice seeking to transform status quo Focus on harm done Wrong as violation of people, relationships, shalom People, shalom as victim Justice aims at bringing together

(in Martin Wright: Justice and Peace – a Restorative Response to Crime, the Bridge, the Southwark Diocesan Newspaper October 2002) 7.4 Restorative Justice in Practice 7.4.1 Restorative Justice is at a very early stage in Scottish prisons, so the way is open for the church to give a lead, perhaps with SACRO, in promoting it. In prison, chaplains have been exploring the use of the Sycamore Tree Course, a restorative justice initiative developed by Prison Fellowship. The change in attitudes of those participating has been positively measured. The course uses as a model the story of Zacchaeus, and is open to all whatever their faith background. The approach encourages victim empathy and its six sessions enable prisoners to consider the impact their offending behaviour has had on victims and the community at large. Opportunity is given to meet with a surrogate victim and the course concludes with a symbolic act of restoration. 7.4.2 One restorative justice scheme already under way in Scotland is operated by Glasgow City Council, which established a "Restorative Justice Service" in 2003 as part of a £2m initiative by the Scottish Executive. The Service aims "To adopt a restorative approach in responding to young people involved in offending, thereby holding these young people to account for their actions and, as a consequence, to reduce repeat offending by the individuals concerned. In addition it is hoped the service will  directly address harm caused and focus on consequences of behaviour

  

engage young people in alternative activities that can divert them from future offending communicate with community groups improve communication between the Strathclyde Police, Victim Support, Community Services and SCRA".

7.4.3 An initial evaluation of the scheme (which involved restorative warnings by police, restorative conferences involving victims, and restorative programmes aimed at repairing harm) found that 71% of those receiving restorative warnings had not been re-referred on offence grounds in the 12 months following the original offence, which is encouraging. However, the report also identified some shortcomings (and anomalies in the figures), which have led to changes in the way the service is delivered; these reforms have yet to be evaluated. 7.4.4 While this evaluation suggests some caution against imagining that a magical solution has been found, there is ample evidence in Scotland and beyond to suggest that there is much in this approach which is worth pursuing. Crucially, the review found that there was a need for "ensuring that restorative interventions become fully integrated with other services in Glasgow working to address offending and anti-social behaviour amongst young people". 7.5 A recent, much more extensive piece of research (5), evaluating experience of restorative justice schemes in several different countries, found strong evidence of success for restorative justice schemes: "A review of research on restorative justice (RJ) in the UK and abroad shows that across 36 direct comparisons to conventional criminal justice (CJ), RJ has, in at least two tests each: • substantially reduced repeat offending for some offenders, but not all; • doubled (or more) the offences brought to justice as diversion from CJ; • reduced crime victims‟ post-traumatic stress symptoms and related costs; • provided both victims and offenders with more satisfaction with justice than CJ; • reduced crime victims‟ desire for violent revenge against their offenders; • reduced the costs of criminal justice, when used as diversion from CJ; • reduced recidivism more than prison (adults) or as well as prison (youths)". The researchers conclude that: "The evidence on RJ is far more extensive, and positive, than it has been for many other policies that have been rolled out nationally. RJ is ready to be put to far broader use, perhaps under a “Restorative Justice Board” that would prime the pump and overcome procedural obstacles limiting victim access to RJ. Such a board could grow RJ rapidly as an evidence-based policy, testing the general deterrent impact of RJ on crime, and developing the potential benefits of “restorative communities” that try RJ first". In Scotland's current context, this seems good advice. 7.6 It is in the integration of services, and in the combination of restorative approaches with some of the noncustodial sentences outlined (7.4.4) above, that we believe an effective way forward can be found, and must be found if we are to address alarming reoffending rates. 8. Towards Solutions 8.1 Imaginative use of existing sentencing options backed up by effective programmes (especially restorative justice based programmes) seems to offer the best hope of a better way than the constantly increasing prison numbers prevailing at present. These would include: (a) Community Involvement: We welcome the introduction of Community Justice Authorities (CJAs), as recognition that everyone has a part to play in making a safer, less confrontational society. The Management of Offenders Act 2005 provided for a statutory framework to improve integration at local level and place the Scottish Prison Service and local authorities under specific new obligations to work closely together to manage offenders “seamlessly”. The Community Justice Authorities, which are responsible for ensuring the consistent and effective delivery of Community Justice Social Work services across their area, invite the participation of partner bodies - including approved voluntary groups - in offender management. Other voluntary groups and bodies may also be consulted for guidance. The eight CJAs, grouping together local authorities in their geographical area, are as follows: Northern, Tayside, Fife & Forth Valley, Lanarkshire, South West Scotland, North Strathclyde, Lothians & Borders, and the City of Glasgow. The CJAs not only present Churches with the opportunity to directly express their involvement and concern, but to earth criminal justice services in the communities they serve, by encouraging community ownership and

discussion and care for all those affected by offending behaviour. Churches are well placed and motivated to provide a lead in the communities of Scotland in this regard encouraging the further development of care for offenders, ex-offenders, victims and all who are affected by crime. “Partnership” is not only the word in vogue, it is a part of the ethos of the Criminal Justice Plan, encouraging collaborative work. Kirk Sessions might invite Community Councils, Neighbourhood Watch Groups, Victim Support Groups, and others to come together to consider community collaboration with their CJA in matters to do with the care of victims and offenders. We heard from Victim Support of the need to balance a focus on offenders with a victim focus, and many victims' sense of being excluded and ignored by the criminal justice system; we see CJAs and restorative justice approaches as having a role in addressing these concerns. As Christians, we need to recognise the pain and pressures of all who are caught up in anti-social behaviour. While media caricatures suggest that community responses are severely punitive, experience of direct engagement (eg through restorative justice schemes) suggests this changes as people become involved in the process. Premature division of “wheat and tares”, with whole wide groups identified as “the problem”, can be deeply divisive; further, as Victim Support told us "offenders and their families can also be victims". Building up communities in which there is a belief that every individual matters, is crucial in the long term; in responding to the creation of CJAs, we believe there is scope for Presbyteries working together (and with other faith communities) to play a significant role. (b) More probation programmes: There is a clear need for stronger more effective programmes to reduce offending which can be linked to probation and deferred sentence, thus increasing the confidence of sentencers in the alternatives to custody. The short-term investment involved in ensuring effective programmes for those on probation would bring substantial savings if reoffending is reduced. (c) Intensive programmes for young people and programmes in schools to reduce violence: Early intervention is not about labelling children from the womb as potential criminals, but about diverting resources into the steps that will work with parents and young people to address early offending before it escalates. There is good work being done in schools on citizenship, and on restorative approaches to bullying, which could be built on. (d) Problem-solving Sentences: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders, particularly within the context of the pilot Drugs Courts, seem to come much closer to addressing the personal needs of those involved in drugs. While it is early to assess the success of Drug Courts, continued review by the same sentencer means that the process is more closely tailored to the individual than is normally possible. Similar approaches might also be adopted in domestic violence courts and youth courts. (e) No prison for fine default (use Supervised Attendance Orders) and better fine collection to reduce default: We welcome the recognition by the Executive that short imprisonment for fine default is unproductive, and the introduction from summer 2007 of SAOs including unpaid work or other activity for default on fines of up to £500. Where means are not the problem, we also support powers to deduct fines from wages. (f) Women in prison: The JFABCJ report on Women in the Criminal Justice System highlighted the special problems of imprisoning increasing numbers of women for relatively petty offences, and found wide agreement that we imprison too many women. Work by the Scottish Executive on this (partly stimulated by the JFABCJ report) seems to have ground to a halt at the time of writing. We believe projects like the "218" project in Glasgow can be built on. The 218 project is "a holistic approach to changing women's offending", offering women offenders in Glasgow programmes of care, support and development designed to stop women's offending by tackling the substance misuse, the trauma and poverty that drive it. Housed in its own city centre building, 218 is supported by the Scottish Executive and Glasgow City Council Social Work department. The project builds on previous success and experience of the Time Out / Turnaround project, drawing on a range of disciplines to develop unique, person-centred programmes for every woman. It aims to help women (who may be in prison, or have been in prison, or be facing prosecution) to address, with the correct support, their specific offending behaviour and the factors which underlie it. (g) Throughcare for short term prisoners:

In the work of “Faith in Community”, a Glasgow based consortium, Churches and Faith communities have already made proposals to the Executive to enhance throughcare in bridging the gap between prison and return to being part of a community. Differing models offer various approaches including: coalition mainstreaming with signposts through the information maze, buddy schemes, family support, focused resources on specific groups, and local integration. Crucially there is an attempt to marry the gifts of communities in the provision of resources with those whom they feel able to support, and resourcing for volunteers is also high on the agenda. Employment of a development worker is planned to further assess throughcare possibilities in other locations. This has good potential for cutting reoffending rates (as does SACRO's pilot of a Community Links Centre to provide support for short-term prisoners on release). We hope that by the time of the Assembly, Executive support for this "Faith in Community" proposal will be confirmed. (h) Effective, integrated Mental Health Services: As indicated above (section three), there are too many people repeatedly imprisoned largely due to ongoing mental health problems. A better range of secure accommodation suited to their needs, and better integration of mental health services could cut repeat offending as well as enabling people to address their problems. (i) “Caring for Ex-Offenders”: This development from Prison Alpha offers guidelines and ideas for congregations who may be preparing to offer befriending and mentoring support for ex-offenders who have expressed an interest in having a connection with a church. There is a detailed compact that can be drawn up providing a basis for the relationship and there are regular training events for volunteers. (j) Spiritual care of offenders and ex-offenders: The vocation of Community Justice Chaplaincy, which has a track record in England and Wales (notably in Gloucester and Cardiff) is to minister to people wherever they are on the spectrum of offending, offering support to offenders serving „alternatives to custody‟ sentences and working in partnership with Prison Chaplains. The innovative post in Throughcare Chaplaincy at HMP Low Moss and Glasgow‟s Lodging House Mission offers a model from the Scottish context. 8.2 We met with the holder of that post, who presented a paper, arising from his experience, making a case for replacement of all short sentences (ie, those of under four years) with a system of penalty points (parallel to that in use for motoring offences), in which reaching a certain number of points would trigger a long sentence. Some of this may informally underpin sentencing at present, and we found this attractive in some ways, but have concerns about how it might work; in particular, we believe it is unrealistic in overestimating the impact of a growing accumulation of points in modifying the behaviour of repeat offenders nearing the brink of a longer sentence. Other non-custodial alternatives could, we believe, have more impact than a build-up of points in reducing re-offending to an extent that would carry public credibility if crimes previously carrying prison sentences are to be dealt with in other ways. 8.3 One of the prisoners with whom we met said: "Alternatives to custody will only work if they are sufficiently onerous on the offender, such that they can be seen as practical. In addition, it must be made clear that a term of imprisonment carries similar requirements for the offender to address their behaviour. If not, persistent offenders would prefer an unconditional period in custody to a non-custodial sentence with onerous conditions." This stress on personal responsibility, on facing up to the offence and its impact, is part of the strength of restorative justice programmes in or outside prisons. 8.4 We recognise the value of "desistance research", which in recent years has focussed on the life events which are often the points at which offenders stop committing crimes: "most of these factors are related to acquiring “something” (most commonly employment, a life partner or a family) which the desister values in some way and which initiates a re-evaluation of his or her own life…" (Farrall, 2002). As one commentator points out, "no institution does a better job of hindering this than prison". Making effective use of this perspective in working outwith prisons has potential, but while such ways of working with offenders, "can build human capital, for example, in terms of enhanced cognitive skills or improved employability, they cannot generate the social capital which resides in the relationships through which we achieve participation and inclusion in society. Vitally, it is social capital that is necessary to encourage desistance". Churches, with a significant role in building social capital, can be part of this.

8.5 Some of the solutions must also be found outwith the criminal justice system, and beyond the focus on the individuals involved. The mantra about being tough on crime and on the causes of crime seems to have disappeared from political fashion; and we would be justified in being reluctant to imagine that "solving" poverty would solve crime. But the figures quoted at the outset on the make-up of the prison population suggest it would be even more unrealistic to suppose the problems are unconnected. As Baroness Stern put it recently "Crime is not cured by the operations of the criminal justice system"; she goes on to cite John Carnachan, a policeman, saying "Over the past 12 months, we have discovered that police and the criminal justice system cannot tackle this deeprooted problem alone. For decades, we have detected crime, reported it to the fiscal and the courts have dealt with the offender. However, despite our efforts, levels of violence have remained relatively constant for the past 40 years. That‟s why we have to work together involving police, health, education, social work and a host of other organisations to make a difference in the long term." 8.6 Additionally, we need to ask deeper questions about why so many people (especially young people) crave alcohol and illegal drugs to enjoy themselves, with huge impact on (and cost to) themselves and their communities. Too many young people (some with learning difficulties) are absent or excluded from school, initiating a cycle which often leads, via low self-esteem, towards anti-social behaviour. There are no "quick fix" solutions here, but a reminder that problems and solutions are community-based. 8.7 We are not by any means original or alone in calling for changes such as these. Victim Support, for example, welcome alternatives which will cut re-offending, recognising that reducing re-offending means fewer victims; they would also seek reassurances that any such alternatives are properly resourced and supervised and that the victim has the potential to influence alternatives such as community disposals. Why, then, are many of these alternatives either not effectively in place or not being used? Reasons include:  some current schemes have not been proved to be "effective" (in the sense of cutting reoffending rates);  short-termism and difficulties in measurement make establishing "what works" difficult and mean that anecdotal evidence and/or media coverage have too much impact on decisions;  such schemes (eg DTTOs) are people- and time-intensive, and therefore expensive – though much less so than imprisonment;  media labelling of alternatives as soft, with the repeated assumption that "prison works" (which it clearly does not, in terms of preventing reoffending, although playing a part in protecting the public from dangerous offenders);  availability of programmes can be a postcode lottery, and sentencers rightly want a disposal they know will happen;  a presumption that anything which supports offenders is hostile to victims (contradicted by restorative justice experience of victim involvement). 8.8 One practical example of the frustrations in this area lies in the Airborne Initiative. This was established in 1994 to provide an alternative to custody for male offenders between 18 and 25, an age group with a high rate of offending and re-offending. It was aimed at high tariff offenders. Most of those on the course had already served prison sentences. The course consisted of a nine week residential programme, including an out door education element and an expedition, as well as work to improve employability and address offending behaviour. It was made the condition of a probation order. It was a demanding programme and by no means all trainees completed the programme. Those that completed had a significantly lower reconviction rate than those who failed to complete and lower also than a comparison group of offenders who received an alternative sentence. The programme dealt with the most difficult offenders. On many, prison had made no impact. However, following a television programme about the Initiative, the Scottish Executive decided to withdraw funding in 2004 – arguing that the project had "failed to attract its target number of referrals from courts" – and this gap in alternatives to custody has never been filled. 9. Challenges to the Churches 9.1 While much of what is said above is addressed to the Scottish Executive, local authorities and sentencers, we believe that there is a major challenge to the churches here, rooted in prayer and in building churches as welcoming, supportive communities. 9.2 There is a role for volunteers in helping victims, prisoners‟ families, those at risk of custody and those released from custody. This help can take many forms from mentoring, buddying, organising youth activities and circles of support. It also requires intensive professional input in recruiting, selecting, training and supporting those volunteers, and most importantly, by making the crucial decisions about which offenders are not suitable for volunteer involvement. Crime is a country wide problem and there are church communities in every parish.

However, the problem is greater in some areas than in others. Great work is being done in churches with the highest incidence of anti-social behaviour. However, their disproportionately heavy load could be lightened if congregations in more stable areas shared funds, expertise and prayer to encourage those who are almost overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task. 9.3 The church has a presence in every community, and communities hold the key to their own safety: the allocation of time and resources to all who belong to them. The concept of giving service to build strong communities is perhaps counter culture. The trend is to buy in services but personal involvement gives added value. As people of faith we are challenged individually and collectively to play our part in strengthening the community we live in. 9.4 One of the most challenging examples of effective community involvement is Circles of Support and Accountability: a model which (while not an alternative to custody) demonstrates that through relationships of compassion and acceptance, those who have damaged others can change and be reconciled with society. This is a simple model, in which a small group of trained and screened volunteers meet regularly with a sex offender, who is living in their community, to provide support and to challenge behaviour, should this be necessary. Circles initially meet once a week and in addition, each member meets with the offender, providing intense support in the early stages. In the four and a half years since Circles have been running in England, they have been successful in preventing sexual re-offending in the high risk sex offenders they are working with. 9.5 The cult of the individual is strong in our society and communities suffer from this. We are all tempted to mind our own business. Does crime become your problem because you or someone you know has been affected by it? Is it your problem because you are afraid of crime and you want to feel safe? Or is it our problem because it is rife in the conditions of social deprivation that our society creates? What are we doing to bring the people who live in these areas into membership of the world in which we live? 9.6 Who benefits from our society and its rules and who is excluded from it? To what extent does our position in society affect the way we view justice? Do our criminal justice processes serve justice or do they reassert the inequality of disadvantaged groups? 9.7 Societies choose what is defined as criminal. Roger Houchin, of the Glasgow Centre for the Study of Violence at Caledonian University, makes the point that the state treats some violence, such as industrial injuries, differently from crime and that both are concentrated in the areas of highest deprivation. Society labels some drug use (though not alcohol) as criminal behaviour, but should we view it more as a health issue; by criminalising it, are we avoiding facing the root causes? 9.8 How do we want to address crime? The press would have us believe that for justice to be done, criminals should "get what‟s coming to them" and be locked away. The myth in society is that offenders are the epitome of wickedness and are banished to prison and punishment solves the problem. It‟s the era of the quick fix. But the facts show that prison is an ineffective method of reducing crime and re-offending although it has an important role in protecting society from the most violent offenders. Why do we keep sending people there? Is it time to approach the problem from another angle, that of putting right the harm done, assisting the victim to recover and attempting to reintegrate the offender into society? 9.9 Given that media debate about crime and sentencing has become more punitive and may even be influencing sentencing, do we have a responsibility to be informed about the facts and to challenge false perceptions? 9.10 In sum, there is potential for a range of prayer and action by churches (and other faith communities) and their members, including: (a) placements for prisoners preparing for release; (b) Circles of Support and Accountability; (c) Community Service Order tasks; (d) throughcare centres; (e) befriending; (f) transport to prison for families; (g) supported accommodation for those who need it (eg bail hostels); (h) affecting public opinion (ie winning hearts and minds). 9.11 It has also been suggested to us that the Church might itself run a prison. This might build on the church's engagement with prisons through chaplaincy and its experience in running residential establishments for young people many of whom have been involved in offending. There are also interesting recent precedents of faith communities running prison wings in the USA and in England. We want to mention in particular the work of the Kainos Community whose faith-based prison wings offer a different experience of prison to inmates in four establishments in England. It is a model that commends itself in terms of heightened motivation, the creation of a

pro-social environment, the support of a “therapeutic community”, and a 24/7 challenge to act responsibly towards others. Return to prison rates as measured by Kainos are very low. Volunteers from the churches offer regular visits and Prison Chaplaincy support has been integral. 9.12 For the Church to consider seriously taking up this challenge it would have to be more than competing with the SPS or private operators in efficient service delivery; it could emerge from the activities suggested above (9.11) and might be explored with the Kainos Community. While we are not persuaded that the Church is ready yet to take up this challenge, making a distinctive contribution by running a specialist prison wing or a bail hostel (especially to address the urgent need for women on remand) may be an area worth exploring with ecumenical and inter-faith partners. 9.13 We would also wish to note, with pride, the existing work of the churches in areas of criminal justice. There are several congregations actively responding in various ways to these challenges, building relationships with offenders; prison and throughcare chaplains play a significant role, increasingly appreciated by others in the criminal justice system as helping offenders to rebuild their lives; and a number of services provided nationally by many churches, and in the Church of Scotland through Crossreach, offer alternatives to custody. Commissioned by Glasgow Social Work Department, Crossreach's Dick Stewart Project in Glasgow aims to provide "a structured environment where offenders can address their offending behaviour to develop skills of independent living as a means of reducing further offending"; it is a placement for offenders (referred by either a Social Worker or Bail Officer) who may otherwise receive a custodial sentence or who are on probation, bail, parole, licence, statutory or voluntary after care. Additionally, Crossreach has, in partnership with the SPS, reopened the Visitor Centre at Perth Prison, offering support to prisoners' families. Although not defined as such, the Crossreach's "Designated Place" in Inverness is an excellent example of a service providing diversion from prosecution. 9.14 These challenges are practical, but they are also theological. Do we simply take our own views (of whatever kind) to church with us and look for Biblical or ecclesiastical endorsement of them, or are we able to reflect on all the disturbing facts in light of our faith, and then make a response which is profoundly counter cultural? These are tough questions, about what we mean in this context by big theological words like redemption, justice and forgiveness, but these are the places where our faith is earthed. Notes:
1. Scottish Executive : Reconvictions of Offenders Discharged from Custody or Given Non-Custodial Sentences in 2002-03, Scotland (Published October 2006) 2. Comment from HMCIP, October 2006. 3. Prof Andrew Coyle, submission to Justice 2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament December 2006: 4. Christopher Marshall in his paper "Prison, Prisoners and the Bible" 5. Lawrence W Sherman and Heather Strang: Restorative Justice: The Evidence, for the Smith Institute and Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2007

Church and Society Council Church of Scotland 121 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4YN Phone: 0131 225 5722 Charity Number: SC011353 May 2007